Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
E. Thulasi – Respondent
W.A.No.509 of 2015
Decided on : 21-06-2024
ACQUISITION - LAND ACQUISITION - The court addressed the validity of the land acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing that once the acquisition proceedings are completed and an award is passed, quashing the Section 6 Declaration is not permissible. The court highlighted that the learned Single Judge's order contradicted established legal principles, leading to the decision to set aside the writ order.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a writ appeal challenging the quashing of the Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration related to land acquisition for the 'Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme' in Koyambedu, Chennai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ court's decision to quash the Section 6 Declaration and the award was inconsistent with settled legal principles regarding completed land acquisition proceedings.
Issues: Whether the writ court had the authority to quash the Section 6 Declaration and the award after the completion of the land acquisition process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the land acquisition process is completed and compensation is deposited, the quashing of the Section 6 Declaration is not justified, as it contradicts established legal precedents.
Result: The writ order dated 01.07.2013 in W.P.No.41584 of 2002 was set aside, and the Writ Appeal was allowed with no costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the Learned Judge in W.P.No.41584 of 2002 dated 01.07.2013.
The writ order quashing Section 4(1) Notification and the subsequent Section 6 Declaration and the award is under challenge in the present writ appeal.
2. The State preferred the appeal on hand.
3. Notice has been issued to all the respondents. As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, substituted service was effected. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have given up. Thus, we have taken up the writ appeal for final hearing.
4. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the land at Koyambedu, Chennai has been acquired for developing “Mid West Madras Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme.” Accordingly, Section 4(1) Notification was issued in G.O.Ms.No.429. The procedures as contemplated under the Acquisition Act has been followed. Section 6 Declaration was issued by the competent Authority in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 02.02.2000. Section 6 Declaration was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 02.02.2000 and thereafter, award was passed in Award No.3 of 2001 dated 05.12.2001.
5. The compensation determined were deposited before the competent Court. The writ Court after completion of entire process of land acquisition quashed Section 6 Declaration order and the award and further direction was issued to the appellant to withdraw the deposited amount from the Civil Court. Such an order passed by the writ court is not in consonance with the settled principles in acquisition proceedings. Once the acquisition proceedings have been completed in all respects and an award has been passed and the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer has been deposited in the Civil Court, quashing of Section 6 Declaration would not arise at all. That apart, reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned is running counter to the legal position settled by the Constitutional courts across the country.
6. We have not chosen to deal with each and every reason stated by the writ court, since such reasons are already considered by the courts and settled in catena of judgments. Admittedly, award was passed in Award No.3 of 2001 dated 05.12.2001 and the compensation has been deposited in the Civil Court. That being the factum, the land owners are at liberty to submit an appropriate application for withdrawal of the compensation amount. They are at liberty to seek enhancement of compensation, if they chosen to do so. However, the acquisition proceedings set aside by the writ court is infirm and not in consonance with the settled legal principles. Consequently, the writ order dated 01.07.2013 in W.P.No.41584 of 2002 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs.
AI
The completion of land acquisition proceedings, including the passing of an award and deposit of compensation, precludes the quashing of the Section 6 Declaration under the Land Acquisition Act.
The completion of land acquisition proceedings, including the issuance of declarations and awards, cannot be invalidated post-factum, and landowners retain the right to seek just compensation and its....
The court established that proper parties must be impleaded in land acquisition proceedings, and that completed acquisitions cannot be challenged if compensation has been deposited.
Subsequent purchasers of land acquired under the 1894 Act cannot claim rights under the 2013 Act as their transactions are void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the prescribed timelines and procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the consequences of non-compliance, leadi....
The subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition, and the property vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances under Section 16 ....
The court emphasized the importance of truthful claims and participation in legal proceedings, and upheld the validity of the invocation of the Central Act for land acquisition.
Non-deposit of compensation does not automatically result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the Old Act, as clarified by the court.
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
